MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2616197060 · doi:10.1093/ageing/afx062.158

158Does The Anticholinergic Burden Of Drugs Predict Outcomes In People With Parkinson's Disease With A History Of A Fall?

2017· article· en· W2616197060 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Emily J. Henderson, Natalie Smith, Daisy Gaunt, Andrew D. Lawrence, Matthew A. Brodie, Jacqui Close, Stephen R. Lord, Yoav Ben‐Shlomo, Alan Whone

Bibliographic record

VenueAge and Ageing · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAnticholinergicParkinson's diseaseAnticholinergic agentsDiseaseIntensive care medicinePsychiatryGerontologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Anticholinergics are widely used in Parkinson's disease (PD) patients, for indications such as tremor and urinary incontinence. Cholinergic loss contributes to cognitive dysfunction, gait disturbance and falls and therefore drugs with anticholinergic properties may exacerbate these features. We sought to determine whether the anticholinergic burden of drugs predicted outcomes in PD. One hundred and thirty participants were recruited to a phase II trial of rivastigmine to stabilise gait in PD (The ReSPonD trial). At baseline and 8-month follow-up, all participants underwent the following assessments: comprehensive drug history from which Levodopa Equivalence (LED) and Anticholinergic Cognitive Burden (ACB) Scale were calculated; cognition measured with the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA); disease severity with the MDS-UPDRS; functional mobility (gait speed) and gait (step time) variability were measured with a tri-axial accelerometer (McRoberts). Falls were ascertained prospectively during the 8-month period. Approximately half (52% (n = 67/130)) of participants were taking medication with anticholinergic activity at baseline. At baseline, younger age, greater disease severity, and higher LED were strongly associated with having a higher anticholinergic burden. Anticholinergic burden at baseline did not predict cognition, gait speed or variability, MDS-UPDRS or falls at follow-up. Linear regression analysis, adjusted for age, baseline LED, treatment arm and MDS-UPDRS, showed that, at follow-up, for every point increase in ACB score, LED was reduced by 34 mg (95%CI −63 mg to −4 mg, p = 0.03). The results suggest that higher anticholinergic burden score is associated, longitudinally, with lower LED. This may reflect the inability of patients with high anticholinergic burden to tolerate higher doses of dopaminergic drugs. Lack of prediction of other factors may have resulted from a type II error or insensitivity of measurement instruments. Studies with larger numbers of patients, over a longer period, could further explore the association between anticholinergic burden, cognitive decline, falls and disease severity.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.295

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.226 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAge and AgeingSame topicParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207